latvia - changing face_hazans_amcham

8/2/2019 Latvia - Changing Face_Hazans_AmCham

1/22


2/22

Dynamics of Latvias population, natural increase and netmigration, 2000-2011

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2000-2003 2004-2008 2009-2010 2011

1000

Net emigration

Natural decrease

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2000 2004 2009 2011 2012

1

000

Population on January 1


3/22

Population change in the Baltics,2000-2011 (% of the inititial population)


4/22

Birth & Death Rates (per 1000):The Baltics vs. The Old Europe, 1970-2011


5/22

Net migration (per 1000):TheBaltics vs. The Old Europe, 1970-2011


6/22

Most emigrants are young...

About 80% of recent (2009-2011)emigrants from Latvia are younger than 35

Hence, the remaining population is agingfaster than each of us...

...and faster than population of thecountries which host our emigrants


7/22

Population by age: 2011 vs. 2000


8/22

Labour Supply in Latvia:Back-of-the-Envelope Forecast

880

900

920

940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

1000

Economically active population


9/22

Th r ee em ig ra t i on w aves

Pre-accession: 2000-2003

Post-accession: 2004-2008

Crisis: 2009-2011


10/22

( i ) 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 03 : Persona l in i t i a t i v e and e f fo r t

High unemployment, low income largeemigration potential (2000: ~15% of active pop.)

Emigration potential was reduced byHopes for a better life in Latvia Institutional obstacles for labour migrationDifficulties related to information and job search

High monetary and psychic costs In sum: rather high de facto thresholds with respect to

own-initiative, access to information, and willingnessto accept risk

Comparative advantage for university graduatesA higher than average proportion of ethnic minorities A high degree of geographical diversification of

migration flows


11/22

( i i) 2 0 0 4 - 2 0 0 8 : I n st i t u t i on a l a n d m a r k e t f o r ce s

Migration-friendly institutional changes along with

technical progress reduced all kinds of migration costs Emigration boom growing diasporas, migrantnetworks, fallling communication and transportationcosts further reduction of migration costs

Emigrants self-selection in terms of human capital was

driven mainly by expected gains in terms of income andworking conditions; these gains were, on average, largerfor persons with secondary or lower education

Migration flows to a large extent re-directed towards theUnited Kingdom and Ireland (and, less so, Sweden)

The proportion of non-Latvians (especially non-citizens)among emigrants declined In the second half of the period, the intensity of

emigration declined due to strong economic growth inLatvia, while return migration increased


12/22

( i i i ) 2 0 0 9 - 2 0 1 1 : Lost j obs and los t h opes The intensity of emigration from Latvia increased

The role of push factors (especially unemployment &

wage cuts, but also lack of prospects, loss of hopesand uncertainty of Latvia's development path) inshaping migration flows increased

The role of host country's social protection system

increased among pull factors Migrants are more oriented towards permanentemigration and more often move as whole families

The proportion of the highly educated among emigrantsincreased significantly and exceeded corresponding

proportion among stayers The proportion of individuals oriented towards own

business among emigrants increased

The proportion of ethnic minorities (especially those

with Latvian citizenship) among emigrants increased.


13/22

Emigrants from Latvia (aged 22+) by completededucation at the end of 2010

3124

3223

3625 28

15

3036

27

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000-2

003

2004-2

008

2009-2

010

L

atvian

/La

tvian

M

inori

ty/La

tvian

Minori

ty/Other

UK

Ire

lan

d

Cont

inen

talEurope

Other

/NA

To

tal

Period of moving Ethnicity and citizenship Host country

Tertiary

Secondary

Basic or less

NA


14/22

Emigrants main occupation, by educationlevel, host country & period of moving

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BelowS

econdary

Seco

ndary

Te

rtiary

UK

Ir

eland

ContinentalEurope

Other/NA

2000

-2003

2004

-2008

2009

-2010

Total

Education Host Time of departure

Other/NA

Job seeking

Studies/Training

Self-employment

Paid work not using one's

qualification

Paid work using one's qualification


15/22

Estonian and Latvian (net) emigration flowsby direction and period, 2000-2010

FI

FI

FIFI FI

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

20

00-2

003

20

04-2

005

20

06-2

008

20

09-2

010

20

00-2

010

20

00-2

003

20

04-2

008

20

09-2

010

20

00-2

010

Estonia Latvia

Other

Nordic counties

Western Europe

Ireland

UK


16/22

Latvian emigrants' plans to return within6 months and within 5 years, 2011/01

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Total

Less than 1 year

1 - 2 years

2 - 3 years

3 - 5 years

5 - 11 years

UK

Ireland

Continental Europe

Other/NA

Basic or less

Secondary

Tertiary

Latvian/Latvian

Minority/Latvian

Minority/Other

Elapse

ddura

tiono

f

sta

ya

broa

d

Hos

tcoun

try

Educa

tion

Ethnic

ity

and

citizens

hip

Plans to return within the next 6 months

Plans to return within 5 years (but not within 6 months)


17/22

Emigration plans of Latvias residents aged 18-65, early 2011


18/22

Emigration plans of Latvias residents aged 18-65, early 2011


19/22

Main findings (1)

In2000 2011, Latvia has lost at least230 thousand persons due to[mostly unregistered] emigration

Latvia's society is much older than weused to think and is aging faster thansocieties in the countries of the old Europe

Latvias birth rate is lower but death rate -higher than in Estonia, Lithuania, the UK,Ireland and Norway; and it is getting worse


20/22

Main findings (2) from surveys conducted inearly 2011

Just 8% of emigrants plan to return within six months. In a longerperspective (within five years) about 20% might come back

The propensity to emigrate due to only non-economic reasons

among citizens of Latvia does not depend on ethnicity and is larger

than among non-citizens

Overall propensity to move abroad during the crisis is larger among

non-Latvians (especially those holding Latvian citizenship)

The proportion of the highly educated among emigrants increased

significantly and exceeded corresponding proportion among stayers.

Students are strongly over-represented among the potential

emigrants. The brain drain risk becomes not negligible


21/22

Policy recommendations

Expert assessment should apply to anysignificant policy change, to avoidincreasing motivation to emigrate among

large groups of population State and municipalties should engage in

strengthening the links with the emigrants

Liberalise [selective] immigration EU-wide compensation mechanisms

EU-wide demographic stimulus (means

tested child benefit floor)


22/22

Sources:

Hazans, M. Who lives in Latvia today? A snapshot of realdemographic situation. Public presentation, University of

Latvia, 12.09.2011, http://www.lu.lv/zinas/t/7594/ Hazans, M (2011). The changing face of Latvian emigration,

2000-2010. In: B.Zepa and E. Klave (eds), Latvia. HumanDevelopment Report 2010/2011: National Identity, Mobilityand Capability. Riga: Univ. of Latvia Press: 70-91

Hazans, M (2012). Selectivity of migrants from Balticcountries before and after enlargement and responses to thecrisis, in Bela Galgoczi, Janine Leschke and Andrew Watt(eds). Intra-EU Migration in Troubled Times: Skills Mismatch,

Return Migration and Policy Responses. Farnham, UK:Ashgate (forthcoming).

Ad hoc calculations
http://www.lu.lv/zinas/t/7594/http://www.lu.lv/zinas/t/7594/

latvia - changing face_hazans_amcham

Documents